As I recall, although 2010 would be uncapped - it would not be manna from heaven for the players. In fact, I think the last years of the deal had some rather draconian measures that would negatively affect the players in order to encourage them to accept some form of salary cap.

As I recall, although 2010 would be uncapped - it would not be manna from heaven for the players. In fact, I think the last years of the deal had some rather draconian measures that would negatively affect the players in order to encourage them to accept some form of salary cap.

yeah, something to do with limiting which players would technically be "free agents" and making it much easier for teams to keep their marque players.

__________________ "All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

This is an area of sports that I'm not that familiar with...Why does the players union expect to get an even larger chunk of the revenue (according to the comments in the article) when the owners were the ones who terminated the contracts? Also, it would seem that if something was unanimously agreed upon to be terminated, it was never really that reasonable in the first place. Why didn't they write into the deal an opportunity to rework it (with mutual consent of both sides) without terminating it or letting it expire? That way you can avoid leaving the shelter of the contract at any given time.

FREE AGENCY: Currently, players who are unsigned and have finished at least four NFL seasons are free. In the 2010 market, players will be free if they are unsigned after at least their sixth NFL season. In other words, 2009 would have to be a player's sixth season, and he would have to enter 2010 unsigned. Let's use Cleveland wide receiver Braylon Edwards as an example. In his original rookie contract, signed in 2005, the final year is 2009, which would be his fifth NFL season. Ordinarily, he'd be a free-agent in 2010 -- if the team didn't sign him before then or place a franchise tag on him. But under the 2010 rules, he won't be a free-agent.

MORE RESTRICTIONS VIA FRANCHISE AND TRANSITION TAGS: Each team now can use one franchise-player tag and one transition-player tag -- which pay the tagged player, respectively, the average of the top five and top 10 salaries at his position. In 2010, the revised deal would allow each team the use of a second transition tag. If a team chose to use all its tags, it could stop its best three players from hitting the unrestricted free-agent market.

RESTRICTIONS FOR THE TOP EIGHT TEAMS IN FOOTBALL: If the uncapped year is reached, the teams with the best eight records in football in 2009 will be severely restricted from jumping into the pool. It's still not precisely determined how the system would work, but let's say the Patriots are one of the top eight and want to sign a free-agent to a five-year, $20-million contract. They'd have to lose their own player or players to contracts totaling $20 million before they could sign the free agent they want. Conceptually, that's how this clause in the deal is going to work, but the exact mechanics of it are not clear yet. The purpose is very clear: The best teams are going to have tight leashes in free agency.

All told, teams would be able to protect more players with tags, and would have fewer free agents because of the six-year rule, and the best eight teams would be playing with one hand tied behind their back.

This is an area of sports that I'm not that familiar with...Why does the players union expect to get an even larger chunk of the revenue (according to the comments in the article) when the owners were the ones who terminated the contracts? Also, it would seem that if something was unanimously agreed upon to be terminated, it was never really that reasonable in the first place. Why didn't they write into the deal an opportunity to rework it (with mutual consent of both sides) without terminating it or letting it expire? That way you can avoid leaving the shelter of the contract at any given time.

I expect that once it became clear that there were enough votes to terminate the deal (9 owners I believe?) everyone voted unanimously in order to present a unified front to the players for negotiating purposes.

If the owners want to unring this bell, they will have to be willing to endure a strike or initiate a lockout. The Union seems convinced that they are unstoppable. Once some of these guys miss a few paychecks, though, Upshaw will find himself in a different position. He is not Donald Fehr. The NFLPA has been put in its place before and it may be time to do it again.

In the end the owners always have the advantage. They're already rich. Eventually the players will have to cave in to the owners demands.

That may not be such a bad thing. I may not understand all of this stuff completely, but I like how things were in the 80's. Good teams were able to keep their good players and not lose them to free agency. I realize it's not fair to the smaller market teams, but honestly, if the Redskins happen to have a dynasty team on the horizon and things are made easier for them to keep these players paid and happy, then I'm all for a change.